Zoning commission approves design review for Bridge District Parcel 5, first mass‑timber residential tower in plan

The District of Columbia Zoning Commission voted 5–0 on Sept. 8 to approve final design review for BD Parcel 5, a 130‑foot, mass‑timber residential building in the Bridge District along Howard Road SE. The approved proposal calls for roughly 272 units, about 8,500–8,600 square feet of ground‑floor retail, two levels of below‑grade parking, approximately 160 parking spaces, bike parking and a mix of studios through three‑bedroom units. The applicant said 29 units (about 12 percent) will be set aside under the Inclusionary Zoning program at 50–60 percent of area median family income, and that most of the three‑bedroom units are in the inclusionary set. The project team described the building as the first mass‑timber residential high‑rise proposed in the Bridge District and highlighted sustainability goals including an all‑electric mechanical program, on‑site energy generation and a target of LEED Platinum and ILFI carbon net‑zero in operations. In presentation comments, project counsel Jeff Utz said, “We are really excited to be here this evening.” Redbrick senior vice president Suhail Chawfla said the team is “targeting LEED platinum and ILFI carbon net 0 from operations.” Why it matters: The development is the next phase of the multi‑building Bridge District immediately west of the Anacostia Metro station. Commissioners and agency reviewers said the project advances the North Howard Road (NHR) zone objectives by adding housing, retail and active streetscape elements while coordinating pedestrian and loading access across parcels. Most important details: The application seeks a limited set of technical flexibilities under the NHR design‑review rules, and it removed a requested roof‑structure setback relief earlier in the process. The team still requests special‑exception relief for uneven penthouse wall heights in a small number of roof locations. The applicant also filed waivers to accept late materials and provided a zoning‑administrator determination that an elevator penthouse vestibule did not require special‑exception relief. Tradeoffs and agency concerns cited on the record: The applicant proposed approximately 100 kilowatts of rooftop solar but noted the NHR standard would require roughly 178 kilowatts; the project team said competing roof‑top needs for an all‑electric mechanical program limited available area for panels. Likewise, the project proposes on‑site stormwater management sized to the 1.2‑inch standard rather than the more stringent 1.7‑inch target used in some other District sites; the civil engineer explained that the 1.7‑inch standard requires every square inch of the site be treated and left insufficient area for other program elements without changing the site plan. Public agencies and community: The Office of Planning recommended approval in its staff report, DDOT supported approval conditioned on implementing a Transportation Demand Management plan, and the ANC (ANC 8A) submitted a letter of support (ANC vote 5–1). Several community organizations and a local nonprofit filed letters of support and one proponent testified in favor during the hearing. DHS Emergency Management submitted a late favorable advisory letter about floodplain coordination; the applicant said it will continue coordination in permitting. Commission commentary and votes: Commissioners pressed the project team for details about mass‑timber logistics, the solar and stormwater tradeoffs, balcony counts and how the building ties to Parcels 3 and 4. Commissioners praised the four‑sided façade treatment, material palette and community engagement. Commissioner Imamura moved to approve; the motion was seconded and passed by roll call 5–0–0. Next steps and conditions: The commission asked the applicant to file a proposed summary order and to add clarifying materials to the record: a written zoning‑administrator confirmation (already obtained and promised for the record) and updated resume dates for the architect. Office of Zoning staff requested the applicant submit the summary order within two weeks. The team said its internal schedule targets a summer 2026 ground‑breaking, subject to permitting and financing. Details distinguished in the record: The transcript separates discussion (design choices, community outreach, sustainability trade‑offs), direction (coordination with agencies, submission of requested paperwork) and the formal action (the 5–0 approval). The commission did not adopt new regulations; it approved the design‑review application with the record as the basis for the order. Taper: The applicant team thanked agencies for review and said it will continue coordination on public‑space permitting, floodplain and building permits as the project moves toward construction.